Hartin v Rigel Constructions Pty Ltd

Case [2013] QSC 320

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hartin v Rigel Constructions Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] QSC 320

PARTIES:

ALLAN IVAN HARTIN
(plaintiff)
v
RIGEL CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD
ACN 010 852 632
(first defendant)
and
BUS QUEENSLAND PTY LTD
ACN 010 516 757
(second defendant)

FILE NO:

4017 of 2012

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

21 November 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 – 25 October 2013

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

1.     Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $280,554.16.

2.     I will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT AND/OR BREACH OF CONTRACT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a delivery driver – where the plaintiff was injured when unloading a roller door from his truck – where the plaintiff was subsequently injured when driving a bus – where liability is admitted by the defendant in relation to the first incident – where medical evidence apportions the  contribution of injuries to the plaintiff’s impairment as 75 per cent to the first incident and 25 per cent to the second incident – where medical evidence suggested the plaintiff had a pre-existing degenerative spine condition – whether there is a casual link between the two incidents

Allwood v Wilson [2011] QSC 180, cited
Bell v Mastermyne Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 331, cited
Cameron v Foster [2010] QSC 372, cited
Corkery v Kingfisher Bay Resort Village Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 161, cited
Fishlock v Plummer (1950) SASR 176, applied
Hosmer v Cook Shire Council [2012] QSC 91, cited
Krieger v Bundaberg City Council [2009] QSC 412, cited
Luck v Civil Mining and Construction Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 413, cited
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705, cited
McDonald v FAI General Insurance Company Limited [1995] QCA 436, cited
McMillan v Kissick [2006] QSC 202, cited
Snell v BP Refinery (Bulwer Island) Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 284, cited
State Government Insurance Commission v Oakley [1990] Aust Torts Reps 81-003, applied

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), 306F, s 306H

COUNSEL:

A L Marks for the plaintiff
D M Cormack for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Michael Cooper Lawyers for the plaintiff
Gadens Lawyers for the defendant

  1. In 2008 the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a delivery driver/labourer.  On 22 February that year he was injured when he was required to manually unload from the tray of his truck and carry a roller door that weighed at least 50 kilograms.  The defendant did not provide the plaintiff with any manual or mechanical assistance to enable him to undertake this work safely.  At the start of the trial the defendant admitted that these injuries (“the initial injuries”) were caused by its negligence.

  1. The plaintiff claims, and the evidence of the jointly-appointed expert, Dr Gillett, is, that…

Continue reading Hartin v Rigel Constructions Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hartin v Rigel Constructions Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 320
Case
[2013] QSC 320
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hartin v Rigel Constructions Pty Ltd involved a claim by the plaintiff, who was employed as a delivery driver by the defendant, against the defendant for damages arising from injuries sustained in the course of employment. The plaintiff alleged that he was injured while unloading a roller door from his truck, and subsequently suffered further injury when driving a bus. The defendant admitted liability in relation to the first incident but disputed the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and their causation. The dispute came before the court to determine the measure and remoteness of damages, specifically focusing on the contribution of the injuries from both incidents to the plaintiff's overall impairment.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether there was a causal link between the two incidents and the extent to which the plaintiff's pre-existing degenerative spine condition contributed to his overall impairment. The court needed to assess the evidence provided by medical experts, which apportioned 75 per cent of the plaintiff's impairment to the first incident and 25 per cent to the second incident. The court also had to consider the principles governing the assessment of damages in cases of personal injury, particularly the rules around remoteness of damage and the admissibility of pre-existing conditions.

The court found that there was a causal link between the plaintiff's injuries and the incidents in question. The medical evidence was deemed reliable and persuasive, and the court accepted that the plaintiff's pre-existing condition did not preclude a causal connection between the injuries and the incidents. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, calculating the total sum based on the apportionment of injuries to the respective incidents. The court determined the plaintiff's entitlement to compensation for his injuries, including both general and special damages.

The final orders of the court included a judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $280,554.16, reflecting the damages awarded. The court further directed that the parties would be heard regarding the costs of the proceedings. This comprehensive assessment of the evidence and application of legal principles resulted in a clear determination of the plaintiff's entitlement to compensation for the injuries sustained.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $280,554.16.

2. I will hear the parties as to costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.